commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <>
Subject Re: [MATH] Interest in large patches for small cleanup / performance changes?
Date Sun, 03 Nov 2013 13:43:25 GMT
On Sun, 3 Nov 2013 10:30:40 +0000, Sean Owen wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 4:17 AM, Ted Dunning <> 
> wrote:
>> Does this actually matter after the JIT takes hold?  And if the JIT 
>> doesn't
>> care to optimize this away, does it even matter?
> Unclear. There aren't hard guarantees about what the JIT does, but
> transformations like this should be easy and local. Doesn't optimize
> != doesn't matter though. The 2D load/store is harder to match, and
> there's one place it matters a bit in EigenDecomposition. I always
> figure it helps to write an increment/decrement as what it is -- all
> the better that it can't hurt speed.
> These are all fairly trivial. The motivation was more from 
> consistency
> in most cases, with an occasional small runtime benefit. I was more
> wondering if, it were just a matter of pressing a button, it would be
> desirable to zap a lot like this. I think the right approach is 
> indeed
> to propose a couple targeted changes and move on.

Standardization is the key concept. A worthy goal even it brings zero
performance improvement.

> Others that might be of interest, as food for thought:
> - Standardizing literals? like saying "0.3" instead of ".3" or ".3d",

If the number is like 0.3, it probably has to be declared as a
"private static final" field with a telling name.

A case that occurs often is "zero" (as "double").
I prefer "0d".

> and writing "2L" not "2l" since the latter looks like "21"

Same here.
For zero as long, I'm for "0L".

> - Using log1p() for computing log(1+p) with a tiny bit more accuracy
> in a few places



To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message